Yes I understand but I don’t agree but do they realize he played 57 games in the field. Also does this mean that Ortiz does get into the Hall. It’s bad enough Edgar Martinez isn’t in the hall. These old guys gotta go this is a travesty. Now I have no problem with Betts winning the MVP but to not be in the top three is BS.

He started 93 games at DH and 57 in the OF, so it wasn't like he never did it or rarely did. He got screwed because Ramirez was horrible in the 2nd half of the season. He batted .218 with 10 HR & 35 RBI's. JD hit .335 after the break with 14 HR & 50 RBI's. JD was better pre all star break too.

Boston didn't add much last offseason and JD was pretty much it. He was a difference maker and we will take .330/43/130 all day every day. They don't come close to 108 wins without him.

No problem with Mookie the winner as it should be but to not be mentioned it just shows that the thinking behind these awards need changing just as the game has changed.

They also were saying that Degrom needed the 10th win which was BS even with 9 wins he wins going away. Nola had a great year but if memory serves he stumbled his last few starts. Degrom had a year that when you mention the greats of all time and there stand out years he must be included in that conversation.

__________________
Sometimes the best bets we make are the ones we don't

Fooled By Randomness
"The more data we have the more likely we are to drown in it"

Trout making the final three and JD not making it makes me want to puke.
Besides the tremendous year he had, helping his team to advance and win WS, JD added so much in the way in chemistry and intangibles and bringing the team to perform to the highest level.
Re: Trout, well just look at the standings and you will see once again how he and his Angels did this season.
Trout is and has always been an all star from the shoulders down, but as of now I have seen very little of anything which he has added in the way of intangibles to make the Angels bigger than the sum of the parts.
If you want to include his Hollywood glamour boy image and looks as an important part of the criterion for determining MVP, then of course he should have made the final three and certainly dwarfing Mookie in that category. lol

savage, Trout is about as anti Hollywood as it gets. He is a Jersey boy who loves Philly teams and the northeast. He hates doing any self promotions and he would rather be home on the east coast with his family.

savage, Trout is about as anti Hollywood as it gets. He is a Jersey boy who loves Philly teams and the northeast. He hates doing any self promotions and he would rather be home on the east coast with his family.

Wayne-For me it isn't how he perceives himself but how others view and evaluate him.
In any case it really doesn't matter that much for me, as the other stuff I mentioned about him as opposed to JD is a lot more important.
In short the biggest difference between how I evaluate an MVP candidate and lots of others is that I just don't look at the numbers the players put up every year but in addition also include the overall impact he has on the team and on the individual performances of other players, most of which cannot obviously be quantified.
Thus when I look back at Trout's career with the Angels and his overall numbers, for sure they are great when looked at alone.
However when I include those intangibles I cited, I see very little in the way in which he has made the Angels a team in the hunt.
No in some of those years, the Angels didn't have the best overall talent, but in some years on paper they had a very good team but yet fell short of making the playoffs, and in fact in some of those years were out of contention long before September.
I don't want to rehash much more of what I already said in the Trout thread.
The important thing is that we are talking about THIS SEASON.
For me it is not even close as to who contributed more toward their team's success, JD as opposed to Trout, and whatever writers who did the voting and/or chose Trout over Martinez for this season are incompetent and should be replaced by someone else!

LOL at your hate for Trout. You should be focused on Ramirez over JD and you can only focus on Trout. Give it a rest already. Hes a top 3 defensive CF who takes at the plate. Mookie wins and thats all that matters anyways.

You know the more I think about it, the more I realize that who is a finalist for MVP and who is not relatively speaking really isn't all that important anyways in the whole scheme of things.
It is one thing for example to be nominated for an Academy Award or not to be nominated for the same and/or to win it if nominated or not win it.
It is an entirely different matter when discussing the MVP in baseball or in any other sport.
The big difference as I see it is that in the first instance one is debating the skills and performance rw:movies which most people watch once and about which people form an opinion and compare it to other actors and actresses in other movies competing for the same award.
That's all well in good but it is a one time event, and after the winner is decided, well that's it and people move on.
With baseball (and other sports), we are dealing for the most part with team wins and losses on a daily basis with 162 games with winning the World Series being the ultimate goal.
This excitement goes on for six months, and seven months or even longer if the team in question makes the playoffs and advances to the World Series.
Thus for me as a Sox diehard the accent is on the team-this year overall it was/is about as good as it "betts" oops I mean gets. lol
Even now when I look at this season just completed and in the future, the FIRST thoughts which come to mind and will come to mind in the future is that the Sox won the WS, won 108 games(119 counting playoffs) and did so in impressive fashion.
I will think of the players who had huge contributions to this success during the season and/or playoffs like Betts, JD, Bogaerts, Benintendi, Bradley, Pearce, Sale, Price, Eovaldi, Kimbrel as well as memorable games along the way.
For me who was voted in/not voted in as a MVP candidate this season pales and will always pale badly in comparison to above.
If somehow for example Trout actually won the MVP this year over Mookie, yes imo it would be a total outrage and insult for sure to Sox fans and baseball.
On the one hand,, while I am sure it would make Angels fans happy in the short term, on the other hand they would have nothing else to be excited about, in short just one more boring, mediocre year with Trout where they didn't make the playoffs and for most of the second part of the year were not even in the hunt.
Conversely as a Sox fan, I do have and will have plenty to be happy about, think about and in general have great memories for years even in Mookie falls short of winning the MVP and JD was snubbed.
I respect the fact that lots of folks will disagree with my philosophy and way of looking at the matter, but that is really the way I view the matter, in short not really all that important when looked at in perspective.

Wayne-For me it isn't how he perceives himself but how others view and evaluate him.
In any case it really doesn't matter that much for me, as the other stuff I mentioned about him as opposed to JD is a lot more important.
In short the biggest difference between how I evaluate an MVP candidate and lots of others is that I just don't look at the numbers the players put up every year but in addition also include the overall impact he has on the team and on the individual performances of other players, most of which cannot obviously be quantified.
Thus when I look back at Trout's career with the Angels and his overall numbers, for sure they are great when looked at alone.
However when I include those intangibles I cited, I see very little in the way in which he has made the Angels a team in the hunt.
No in some of those years, the Angels didn't have the best overall talent, but in some years on paper they had a very good team but yet fell short of making the playoffs, and in fact in some of those years were out of contention long before September.
I don't want to rehash much more of what I already said in the Trout thread.
The important thing is that we are talking about THIS SEASON.
For me it is not even close as to who contributed more toward their team's success, JD as opposed to Trout, and whatever writers who did the voting and/or chose Trout over Martinez for this season are incompetent and should be replaced by someone else!

Savage, others view and evaluate him as the best player in the game, a sure fire first ballot HOFer, and one of the all time greats, there isn't anything on the field he doesn't excel at. You're the only one who dismisses his greatness because the team he plays for hasn't been very good, which isn't his fault.

savage, Trout is about as anti Hollywood as it gets. He is a Jersey boy who loves Philly teams and the northeast. He hates doing any self promotions and he would rather be home on the east coast with his family.

You nailed it Wayne, Trout is an East Coast guy who happens to play out West, he rarely gives interviews, and as far as I know the guy doesn't even have any endorsements, I don't recall ever seeing him do a commercial. He just quietly goes about his business being the best player in the game without much hoopla or fanfare, and that's the way he likes it.

Savage, others view and evaluate him as the best player in the game, a sure fire first ballot HOFer, and one of the all time greats, there isn't anything on the field he doesn't excel at. You're the only one who dismisses his greatness because the team he plays for hasn't been very good, which isn't his fault.

Kane-the others to whom you refer have the right to evaluate him any way in which they choose, just as I do.
I choose to evaluate any player using not only his empirical skills but also to what he adds to the team's success and chances of success.
Much of this involves intangibles and chemistry(I know that I mentioned these before but for me they need to be stressed).
To use your words, no it is not Trout's fault that the other players didn't do better.
The other side of the coin is that imo a great player will lead by example and in his own way his very presence on the field will help to make the other players perform at least up to expectations if not beyond it-obviously this cannot be quantified and is subjective.
If it was just one year that the Angels did poorly and/or were mediocre with his presence it would be one thing, but in his case it was 2011 when he began playing with Angels with some decent teams along the way-the net result was they made the playoffs just once and were quickly swept out.
For me that shows that the "it" factor is badly lacking in him, which helps to make the total(team) greater than the sum of the parts(players).
Most of the so called writers and experts picked the Jays to win AL East in 2013become they had assembled lots of very skilled players at each position.
Most of these so called folks picked for the Sox once again to finish last.
As we all know the Sox won not only the division, but also the Pennant and most importantly while the Jays finished dead last-enough said.
A lot of the reason the Sox won that year is because there was team spirit, chemistry and a feeling of unity and cohesiveness.
In short if one wants to say Trout is a shoo-in for the HOF, the GOAT(imo way too early to make statements like that), based only on a bunch of empirical stats-then fine-will never agree with that for reasons cited.
Another rough comparison would be to ask yourself whether you consider the best restaurant in the area in which you reside to be based simply on the quality of the food only or would other considerations come into consideration?
My answer to this question would be a resounding NO!
For me the best restaurant using my criterion would be that the restaurants in contention would have to have good food for sure, but not necessarily the best food.
My overall evaluation and determination of the best restaurant besides the food would consider and include the speed of service, friendliness of staff, the décor, ambiance, number of choices of food on the menu, and in general the one which offered the best dining experience.
I realize that the argument isn't perfect as applied to Trout, but in his case all I can say is that goal is for any team to win.
Having great and/or very good players at each position will only go so far as 2013 as an example indicates.
Thus to conclude, when/until/if proven otherwise and I continue to see the Angels underperform each season with his presence on the team, I will continue to view him as I said before as an MVP from the shoulders down, which for me is simply not good enough.
I have to go now, and may or not participate in further discussion.
In short I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this because no one is going to change my mind on this philosophy and I am sure vice versa.

Savage, I've posted this before, I'll try one last time. You seem to think Trout is responsible for the Angels not winning, you think if he's such a great player he should be able to make his team better, but baseball doesn't work that way. In football a player can make his teammates better, for example a great offensive lineman can make a running back better by opening up a hole for him to run through, a cornerback can make a defensive lineman better by covering his man long enough to allow the lineman to get a sack, etc. In basketball obviously one great player can make his teammates better, he can make plays for his teammates and make them better players. In Baseball what's a great player supposed to do to make his teammates better? Baseball is an individual sport, Trout can't make his first baseman a better hitter, Trout can't make his third baseman a better fielder, Trout can't make any one of the pitchers better, all he can do is have 4 great at bats and field his position flawlessly. Barry Bonds is considered the GOAT of his generation, he never won a WS, Ken Griffey JR is an all time great, but he never won a WS, Max Scherzer is one of the best pitchers in the game, but his team missed the playoffs, was it his fault, or was his team not good enough? If you put Trout on the Sox in place of Mookie, the Sox still win the WS and have the same success, it isn't Trout's fault he plays for a mediocre franchise, if he played for the Cubs, Astros or Red Sox he would already have a ring, but there isn't anything one great player can do if he's stuck on a mediocre team. You seem to think if Trout is so great he should elevate his team to playoff success, but baseball doesn't work that way since it's not a team game as much as an individual one. You can believe me or not, but if Mookie was on the Angels, they wouldn't compete for the WS, and if Trout was on Boston they would still be WS champions.

Savage, imo Ted Williams is the greatest hitter of all time and the greatest Red Sox player of all time. Guess what, he never won a WS, does that take away from his greatness? Does that mean he was only great from the shoulders down? Why didn't he have the intangibles to make his teammates better? Williams did everything in his power to help his team win, he's a top 10 player in baseball history, but for all of his amazing greatness the Sox only made it to one WS which they lost. Yaz was a great player, but he never led the Sox to a WS either, so does that diminish his greatness? I could go on and on naming all time greats of the game who never won a WS, and their lack of a championship wasn't their fault, just like the Angels not winning isn't Trout's fault either, baseball is an individual game, and one player, no matter how great he is doesn't guarantee success like it does in other sports. In football a great QB can elevate his team, one great basketball player can elevate his team, it just doesn't work that way in baseball.

If you put Trout on the Sox in place of Mookie, the Sox still win the WS and have the same success, it isn't Trout's fault he plays for a mediocre franchise, if he played for the Cubs, Astros or Red Sox he would already have a ring, but there isn't anything one great player can do if he's stuck on a mediocre team. You seem to think if Trout is so great he should elevate his team to playoff success, but baseball doesn't work that way since it's not a team game as much as an individual one. You can believe me or not, but if Mookie was on the Angels, they wouldn't compete for the WS, and if Trout was on Boston they would still be WS champions.

As was the case the first time, I will never even agree with what I deem to be an absurd notion.
In all honesty although it can't be proven obviously, I don't believe that that the Sox would have won the WS had they had Trout.
We are not talking about inanimate and interchangeable sparkplugs here.
Rather we are talking about real human beings here whose OVERALL success and evaluation cannot simply be measured quantified by looking at stats on the field.
Imo Mookie not only got it done on the field but was a big part of the overall chemistry and team spirit which imo are a big part of the success of any team.
If you don't believe in stuff like this because you can't see it or touch it and that it doesn't have any impact on the overall success of a them then so be it-I do.
Thus, I see no point in further discussion because as I have stated previously the success of any team is not due just to what the players produce on the field-there is a lot more to it.
Further I don't agree at all with what I view to be a simplistic value of baseball, namely that is should be viewed as strictly an individual sport-rather I believe that the presence of certain player of certain players on a team can actually motivate other players on the team to perform to the best of their abilities.
You can say what you want about Trout-imo he has been surrounded in some pretty decent talent since 2011 with very little results to show for it.

Savage, imo Ted Williams is the greatest hitter of all time and the greatest Red Sox player of all time. Guess what, he never won a WS, does that take away from his greatness? Does that mean he was only great from the shoulders down? Why didn't he have the intangibles to make his teammates better? Williams did everything in his power to help his team win, he's a top 10 player in baseball history, but for all of his amazing greatness the Sox only made it to one WS which they lost. Yaz was a great player, but he never led the Sox to a WS either, so does that diminish his greatness? I could go on and on naming all time greats of the game who never won a WS, and their lack of a championship wasn't their fault, just like the Angels not winning isn't Trout's fault either, baseball is an individual game, and one player, no matter how great he is doesn't guarantee success like it does in other sports. In football a great QB can elevate his team, one great basketball player can elevate his team, it just doesn't work that way in baseball.

Kane-You want to talk about Ted Williams to make your point-fine.
Do you think if they had playoffs and wildcards back then rather than just two leagues and no divisions, the Sox might have at least made the playoffs in some of those years rather than just playing second fiddle to the Yankees?
The same is true of Yaz.
In short they would have had more opportunities than is the case now.
Once again I disagree 100% with the notion that a baseball player or players cannot elevate a team in their own way.
The best example I can think of is Pedroia-do you think his overall hustle, and total dedication and devotion to the game in some ways wore/wears off on his teammates to inspire and motivate them to go out and perform and overall make the team as good as it can be?
If you say no, again fine-I disagree with you philosophically 100%.
In summary re: Trout, the team is a total disjointed and disorganized mess.
No I can't blame Trout for not doing more to help this situation because perhaps he just isn't cut out of the right mold to do this.
However, that said, for me it doesn't take away from the fact that I consider stuff like this and especially so in MY definition of what makes a player truly great!
That's it-I'm done.
ps Hmm-I notice that no one took a shot in answering the question in my thread about exchanging Betts for Trout for two seasons.
In my mind I know why no one answered it, but I don't want to start another controversy. lol

savage, Trout is about as anti Hollywood as it gets. He is a Jersey boy who loves Philly teams and the northeast. He hates doing any self promotions and he would rather be home on the east coast with his family.

You are correct Wayne. Trout is great guy on and off the field. He spent his own birthday this past August at CHOC, meeting and handing out gifts to the kids. Class guy. Anybody that says he’s Hollywood, has no idea what they are talking about.

To be clear, my reference to Hollywood re: Trout has nothing to do with how he lives his life.
What I meant is that he is a payer with lots of talent, also very good looking and charming, muscular and overall and in general has the appearance which will bring people to the ballpark and lots of women for sure. lol
I don't think you can say the same about a player like Mookie Betts regarding his physical appearance anyways.

To elaborate on my previous post, imo besides being a very talented player, Trout is also a quite a sex symbol for women and I would assume also gay men, which is obviously very important in all aspects of life including sports and baseball!
Thus if there was such a category of MVP for baseball as far as impact on attendance and overall sexual appeal is concerned, then yeah imo Trout would be one of the leading candidates. lol

Posted in error as link doesn't work.
The link stated that Mookie is -1250 to win the MVP and imo rightfully so-if anything imo it should be closer to -1500 or even -2000 for this season.
Trout is +450 and Ramirez +800.